Broadband is decreasing now, claimed to help the economy bla bla bla, (Vikki S. Katz, Matthew D. Matsaganis, and Sandra J. ball-Rokeach, Ph.D., University of Southern California, ETHNIC MEDIA AS PARTNERS FOR INCREASING BROADBAND ADOPTION AND SOCIAL INCLUSION, Published 2012. PDF pg. 79-102.) but it means that minoritys which depend on cheap public broadband will not be able to send their radio and TV news at all. But it also means that because most people get their news from public TV and radio which is corrupt with racist ideas (Chucks Amajor, Mark Sanders, DeRonnie Pitts, http://www.stanford.edu..., )in turn influences just about everyone which is the reason racism hangs on in America. By increasing broadband we give the local minoritys a voice, and that will help aleaviate peoples thoughts about violent minorities. The best and only way to help mend the wounds that have been made is to give these minorities a voice, (Vikki Katz, ETHNIC MEDIA AS PARTNERS FOR INCREASING BROADBAND ADOPTION AND SOCIAL INCLUSION, Published 2012. PDF pg. 79-102) While many might make the argument that the reason for the decrease in radio broadcasts is because much of news these days has shifted over to the internet, the system is strained and doesn't access everyone, what must be done is invest in radio broadcasts to solve, (Darrell M. http://dspace.cigilibrary.org...)

The National Broadband Plan is "a FCC (Federal Communications Commission) plan which deals with improving broadband Internet access throughout the United States."[1]

Should will be defined to mean that a sufficient reason has been provided which makes taking a particular course of action either necessary or optimal. To substantially increase investment will mean to provide considerably greater time, money, or energy into the NBP.

===Refutation of Pro===

Contention I. Voice to Minorities

The first contention which my opponent argues is that with the downgrading of the National Broadband Plan, minorities are given less of a "voice". Not only has my opponent not provided warrant for this claim, but neither has my opponent either provided empirical evidence that downgrading of the NBP would disproportionately affect minorities nor has he provided ample reasoning as to why increasing Internet access would give minorities more of a voice in news and Tv. All increased Internet access means is just that, access to the Internet. It doesn't mean that minorities are given more control of the content of Tv or radio. All it means it that they have more access to viewing the Tv and radio which my opponent claims is so corrupt and racist.

Contention II. Perpetuation of Racism

The next contention forwarded by my opponent lies in the presumption that if minorities are not given more of a voice in radio and Tv, then racism will therefore be perpetuated. Of course, my opponent has in no way provided warrant for the contention that contemporary radio and Tv are "corrupt with racist ideas" besides an off site article which he didn't so much as even summarize.

Also, given that my opponent is defending a specific plan of action to fix the alleged problem, he possesses a burden to show how exactly his plan would do that. Nothing in my opponent's argument actually shows this though. While having a larger voice is ambiguously positive, it doesn't sufficiently show why racist ideas would be lessened. Surely there are numerous examples of people supporting racist ideas regardless of the racists personal race (there are racist Hispanics, African Americans, Whites, etc.) and so just integrating different races into radio and Tv will not necessarily fix the problem. If it would my opponent has not shown why.

Not only do more inclusion of minorities in radio and Tv not necessitate less racism being perpetuated, but my opponent has not actually elaborated on what he means by minorities sending "their radio and TV news" and how exactly this related to the downgrading of the NBP. The NBP aims at increasing access to the Internet. What about this would give minorities more "voice" in radio and Tv (the meaning of my refutation of C1).

Contention 1 - After each claim I have made I have cited a specific book or website that my opponent may look at and read upon, it is the fault of the Con for refusing to look at this information and thus, not allow for his education to be increased. But moving on to the more important issue which is that of the Con's argument that there is no internal link to minorities having a 'voice' in radio. With increased broadband, we are allowing for minorities to hear and see more of world around them, increasing their education of what is happening and allowing them to set up their own radio shows and even blogs. Yes, the idea is far fetched, but we as an american people, have the moral obligation to help those who feel as though they are being excluded from society, it is this unification that we fight for in enacting this plan.

Contention 2 - Extend my education argument from above and cross apply it to the one made in this contention. Extend my second piece of Vikki Katz evidence, which if my opponent had read would explain how the Pro plan would functionally work, allowing for minorities to voice their opinions. But even if you don't buy this link then you must look at the larger picture which my opponent has failed to do. I defend the gesture that is proposed by helping the minority community, if we give them the gift of a voice, then we are reaching out our hand and saying to them "You are one of us, we are one." In this world, we are able to mend the wounds that have been created by racist ideals on both sides.But to elaborate on my opponents confusion based on the overall Solvency of this case, which is that allowing minorities a voice in radio and broadcasting allows them the ability to tell the world of their struggles and allow for the general public to emphasize with them, it is from this that we help the wounds of racism in our country.

On the books and articles my opponent cites without summary as alleged proof of his arguments, I would disagree that it is the responsibility of the Con to read them on his own and that Pro has no responsibility to at least summarize the arguments he is using. The point of a source is to corroborate the debater's argument, not serve solely as their argument. Obviously we do not allow arguments to be posted which only contain a link to an argument written by someone else on a third party website. If we did then there would be no reason to actually present one's own argument. Even if my opponent is basing his argument off of the articles and books cited, this does not excuse the fact that he did not actually say anything about them himself, a clear violation of basic conduct and etiquette.

Ignoring this point however, my opponent has himself admitted that the idea that giving minorities increased access to Internet would lead to them setting up their own Tv and radio is "far fetched". And he rightly says this. For my opponent has not shown any reason why minorities would use increased Internet to do these things anymore than they would use increased Internet to watch Netflix, surf Wikipedia, or do any other seemingly infinite number of Internet related activities.

Besides this however, my opponent has also made another unwarranted claim in his R2. My opponent claims that "we as an American people, have the moral obligation to help those who feel as though they are being excluded from society". Of course my opponent shows no reason why (A) moral obligations even exist and (B) why they exist in this sense. Seeing as my opponent has not done so he has not upheld his burden as Pro and instigator of this debate. This takes the debate into a more philosophical direction and my opponent has not upheld his burden to show sufficient obligation.

Contention II.

On my opponent providing sources of evidence as arguments in themselves without actually making an argument by himself, I refer my opponent to my refutation of this viewpoint in my refutation of Contention I. Secondly, the rest of my opponent's case is mostly ambiguous (referring again to his idea that providing a link is the same as providing an argument. Also remember that my opponent never attempted to refute my point that simply providing more of a voice doesn't guarantee an end to racism. All it does is allow for a platform filled with more potential racists.

Conclusion.

To conclude this debate, the main problem with my opponent's case is that he never actually attempts to explain or argue the specific contents of his plan, but instead simply provides links which are supposed to do so. My opponent fails to understand that in argument, throwing up a source is not by itself sufficient to prove a point. If it were I would simply post a link to an article refuting my opponent's case with him following in suit and no actual argumentation unique to both of us would ensue. Besides this, even if my opponent's arguments sourced (but not elaborated on) were not a violation of debate etiquette, they are insufficient to actually justify the resolution. For my opponent never responded to my point that the NBP doesn't necessarily give minorities an actual voice in Tv or radio (my opponent himself admitted this to be a long shot) and even if it did, that doesn't actually provide a genuine plan to stop racism. All it does is give racists who are also minorities a platform to spread their hate. Stopping racism has to do with education, not giving everyone a microphone.

Arguments went to Con because Pro was not able to sufficiently prove his point. He made his claims - even if they were a bit unclear - but never provided appropriate evidence or warrants as to why they were true. In his rebuttal, he didn't try to make his claims clearer, but rather defended the fact that he doesn't have to write his own arguments, which is a little rediculous, to be perfectly honest. Because the Pro could not uphold his Burden of Proof, I gave arguments to the Con.

Conduct went to the Con because Pro did not explain his evidence, but rather say that it was the responsibility of the Con to read through every bit of evidence provided by the pro. This goes against common rules of conduct for debates, and at least one of the sources Pro provided was cited from a report with no link, which would mean Con would have to fish through the internet for a large report and then read through all of it before rebutting his opponent.

I didn't give soruces to anybody because even though Con didn't use one for anything besides a definition, and Pro used his incorrectly.

I gave S/G to Con because I found fewer errors in his argument, and no guidelines were set for deciding it, so I went with my own interperetation.

Not a bad first appearance for Pro, but there are few reasons I need to give the win to Con.

Pro's plan wasn't defined. Based on the resolution and the sentence that sounded most like a plan, I think Pro wants to invest in radio broadcasts to solve racism. However, most of his R1 is talking about broadband internet. I need to be sold on radio, not broadband.

Pro also argues that public radio is corrupt with racist ideas, but advocates increasing investment in radio. Without a clear idea of what his plan is, so far it seems like a self-defeating argument.

Pro's R2 was better organized, but conceded most of his solvency by saying that his solution was 'far-fetched'. Pro also needed to address Con's rebuttal of his 'many voices' argument where Con argues that many voices can mean many negative and racist voices just as easily as the reverse. Pro expanded on his own idea, but needed to counter Con's.

The moral obligation argument wasn't supported. What is the basis for an obligation to include all perspectives and what's the reason to believe it will acheive the desired goals?

Con is right that expecting me to locate a copy of a book to determine what Pro's plan actually entails is not reasonable, meaning Con used his fewer sources better.